DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the claim, or any preceding claim from which claim 6 depends, does not recite “the first shaft” or “the second shaft” in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since the claim, or any preceding claim from which claim 6 depends, does not recite “the first shaft” or “the second shaft” in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Didelot (U.S. Patent 3,908,032).
Regarding claim 1, Didelot teaches a mixing blade for a mixer (Annotated Figure 3 provided below, item 7 stirring blade) comprising: a first end of the blade having a first face (see annotated figure 3 which shows the first face at first end); a second end of the blade opposite the first end of the blade and having a second face (see annotated figure 3 which shows the second face at second end); a first and second blade face disposed between the first end and second end (see annotated figure 3 which shows a first blade face and second blade face, disposed in between the first and second ends); a first end cap having an outer face and an inner face (see annotated figure 3, first cap end), wherein the inner face abuts the first face of the first end of the blade (the first cap end abuts against the first face at first end of the blade); and a second end cap having an outer face and an inner face, wherein the inner face of the second end cap abuts the first face of the second end of the blade (the second cap end abuts against the second face at second end of the blade).
Regarding claim 4, Didelot teaches further comprising a central section joining the first blade face and the second blade face (see annotated figure 3 central section).
Regarding claim 6, Didelot teaches wherein the first shaft and the second shaft are concentric (see shafts extending from item 7 towards the endcaps).
Regarding claim 8, Didelot teaches wherein the first of the blade and the second end of the blade are formed by a first method and the first end cap and the second end cap are formed by a second method, wherein the first method differs from the second method (figure 3 teaches the blade, the claim is directed towards a blade and annotated figure 3 teaches the blade, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself in an apparatus claim. Therefore, the two method limitations have not been given patentable weight.).
Regarding claim 12, Didelot teaches A mixing blade having a first end and a second end (see annotated figure 3 item 7 blade with first end and second end), wherein the improvement comprises a first end cap secured to the first end and a second end cap secured to the second end (see annotated figure 3 end cap at first end and end cap at second end).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Didelot (U.S. Patent 3,908,032).
Regarding claim 5, Didelot teaches a first mixing shaft having a first end and second end (see shaft extending from item 7 at the first end cap) and a second mixing shaft having a first end and second end (see shaft extending from item 7 at the second end cap). Regarding claim 5, Didelot is silent to the end cap shape open for the shafts to extend through. Regarding claim 5, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the end caps in order to obtain the desired connection between the agitator and the end shafts since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Didelot is silent to the material of the blade. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 9, Didelot is silent to the material of the blade. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 10, Didelot is silent to the material of the blade. Regarding claim 10, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 11, Didelot is silent to the material (which would inherently have a porosity) of the blade and end caps. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material (which would inherently have a porosity) to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 13, Didelot is silent to the material of the blade. Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 14, Didelot teaches a mixing blade having a first end and a second end (see annotated figure 3 item 7 blade with first end and second end) wherein the improvement comprises a first end cap that abuts the first end of the blade and a second end cap that abuts the second end of the blade (see annotated figure 3 end cap at first end and end cap at second end). Regarding claim 14, Didelot is silent to the material of the blade. Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 15, Didelot is silent to the material of the blade. Regarding claim 15, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 16, Didelot is silent to the material of the end cap. Regarding claim 16, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try to modify the material to obtain the desired degree of rigidity of the blade.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Didelot (U.S. Patent 3,908,032) in view of Ostvik (U.S. Publication 2021/0121837).
Didelot is silent to the language of claim 2. Regarding claim 2, Ostvik teaches wherein a periphery of the first end cap is welded to a periphery of the first end of the blade (see item 108’ and item 104’ and paragraph 41 that teaches using a welded coupling) and wherein a periphery of the second end cap is welded to a periphery of the second end of the blade (see item 108 and item 104 and paragraph 41 that teaches using a welded coupling). Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the endcap and blade configuration with the welding coupling of Ostvik in order to obtain a desired rigidity of the blade.
Regarding claim 3, Didelot teaches wherein the first end cap and the second end cap have a cross-sectional shape that is substantially the same as the cross-section shape of the first and second end of the blade, respectively (see annotated figure 3, first end cap and second end cap have circular cross sections which is considered substantially similar to the portions of the blade item 7 to which they are attached).
Drawings
Annotations of figure 3 are provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a mixing blade with the combination of the faces, end caps, first shaft, second shaft, and the internal passageway extending through the mixer blade.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights